American Deceptionalism

Nothing threatens the one-party monopoly of US politics more than competition. [A monopoly often referred to as "the two-party system."]

Independent candidates almost universally are categorised as "spoilers" who can't win, diverting votes from "serious" candidates. Ron Paul knows that so-called third-party candidates cannot get the press coverage or funding to be viable, so the "spoiler" moniker becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Dr Paul has been vying for the Republican nomination. He has an outside chance of winning or, as most media pundits like to say: He'll never get the nomination but, if he does, he will lose to Obama. Never mind that these are the same pundits who guaranteed that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee in 2008 and, on the odd chance that Barack Obama got the nomination, he was unelectable.

Pundits can be wrong. Polls can be wrong, voters surprising.

As the campaign drags on, there will be a barrage of "Paul can't win" messages. Initially, the strategy was to ignore him, as when his close second-place finish behind Bachmann in the Iowa straw poll was not mentioned in polite society.

I began working on this piece after studying my Ron Paul shirt. The back is adorned with the entire US Constitution. Try fitting the Obama Health Care Insurance Entitlement (OBAMACARE) legislation on any article of clothing.

Proudly, I have not voted for a Democrat/Republican presidential candidate for forty-two years, backing up my belief that the Incumbent Party monopoly is destroying the Republic. I had hoped not to be alive to witness this inevitability. Now I'm not so sure, due to a combination of rapid legislative deterioration and personal resilience. Then again, who knows what will happen if Obamacare is allowed to kick in.

Irksome media signals are multiplying. There's the recurring theme of the Republicans needing someone who can beat Obama. Knowing whom I support, a mate asked me the other day if I want Mr Obama reelected. Of course not. No sane person does, unless you consider Ahmadinejad sane. The real question is whether I want another cipher perpetuating the shift to a fascist America.

After scattershots at Ron Paul, the Wall Street Journal (16 Dec 11) ran an essay by respected journalist Kim Strassel [I respect her opinions.], who states that "Ron Paul will never be the GOP nominee." (Ironically no longer a Grand party, just Old.)

Ms Strassel subscribes to the consensus of those who hold their own opinions in the highest esteem, that all Republicans are somewhat libertarian on some things, but enthusiastically pro-military spending and adventures. (Basically warmongers.) Unlike most candidates in both wings of the Incumbent party, Paul has served in the military. Those in the Armed Forces are big supporters of his restrained foreign policy approach.

Kimberly Strassel claims that Paul denies American exceptionalism and "refuses to allow for decisive action to protect the US homeland." She goes so far as to say "the nation" fears his isolationism, making his views out of touch.

Is exceptionalism a real word? If so, use it in a sentence that does not concern the United States. Here's a working definition from the Observer:
    Exceptionalism: Special rules apply to the world's only superpower.

At the final so-called debate (of the year) Thursday night on Fox News, Ron Paul forcefully defended the Constitution, reminding his colleagues that a declaration of war is a prerequisite to attacking another country, another of his wacky ideas lifted from the US Constitution. Conversely, Michele Bachmann sounded less like a strict Constitutionalist, more like an aggressive crackpot, and she wasn't even talking about gays being cured. [Would they be sugar-cured?]

Bachmann said that "we all know what will happen in Iraq" when the US troops are gone. No, we don't, although we imagine it will be unfortunate. Problem is, that prediction was made the day the US invaded. Even with American troops present, Iraq was no picnic [see: Iraq in a box below]. The congresswoman added, "we all know without a shadow of a doubt" that Iran will get a nuclear weapon and use it, or something like that. She was too enraptured to enunciate.

Forgive me, but didn't we all know that Iraq had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction? She cites an IAEA [International Atomic Energy Commission] report saying the Islamic Republic [republic? ha!] are months away from going nuclear. So now we trust the UN? This is the organization that placed Iran on the Human Rights Commission.

If Iran is so evil, why did the US invade Iraq? Was it a typo?

Paul pointed out what any impartial observer could: A barrage of war propaganda in the US is encouraging a preemptive attack on Iran. The doctor regards the biggest danger as "another war in the name of defense." The US has 12,000 diplomats, he said, suggesting "we ought to use a little diplomacy once in awhile."

I have lived in some of the most progressive counties, where war is not cool, still I cannot believe that "the nation" supports a continuous state of war. As Dr Paul pointed out, "we can't afford it." As I've been emphasizing in my blog [L·E·E], politicians love war. Peace candidates have won presidential elections, up to and including Barack Obama. Trouble is they were lying.

Take the Middle East. (please) I understand the US has officially left Iraq. How exactly did that involvement [partially tallied below] make us safer? Considering that American armed forces have overrun this region of the world for over a decade, we should be really, really super-safe. So how about repealing the Patriot Act, closing Homeland Security and the TSA. Rather than removing those burdens, most politicians support tighter restrictions on Americans. These politicians swear they will support and defend the Constitution. When they violate their oath, the terrorists win.

Whether or not you agree with his tactics, Obama has been droning out al-Qaeda leaders, the ostensible reason for US occupation. "But the world demands more than that, it begs for a larger strategic reading of things." Yes, and more free stuff. But Fouad Ajami, making the first assertion in the Wall Street Journal (17 Dec11) is regarding his opinion as universal, which presents several problems.

1. Who cares what the world thinks?
   This is not the United States of Earth.
2. On what basis does Ajami make this assertion?
3. The US faces its own challenges to Democracy, which should be resolved before intervening in other countries.
4. There is no consensus within the US on foreign policy. Most decisions are unpopular and unsupportable.

IRAQ in a box Iraqis killed: 103,775 (about 12 percent by American forces, the rest in terrorist attacks, sectarian violence and extra-judicial executions) Americans killed: 4,487 wounded: over 32,000 Official cost: $805 billion

Fewer than 200 of the 4,000 US forces are remaining to administer arms sales and other limited military exchanges as part of the diplomatic mission. Iraq is the fourth-biggest purchaser of US military hardware (weapons) in the Middle East. The US diplomatic mission is the world's largest. Of the 16,000 employees expected to work at the embassy by 2012, only 1,500 to 2,000 will be State Department staffers. Many of the rest are security contractors or, as at least one blogger calls them, "armed mercenaries."

Last month, the US transferred drones from Iraq to the Turkish airbase of Incirlik, close to the Iraqi border, according to Voice of America. SOD Leon Panetta met with Turkish leaders to firm up agreements for US operations in Turkey. So US personnel and weapons remain nearby.

American Terror

Then there is the other front of the so-called War on Terror. The USA Patriot Act officially is called "Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism." USA PATRIOT is an acronym! More effort was expended developing that name than went into writing Obamacare. Too bad the Patriot Act itself was not given the same consideration as its name. Then again, maybe it was. Particularly in DC, the government works overtime to strip citizens of our rights, while exempting and elevating themselves. That must be what they mean by American exceptionalism.

Two pieces of legislation made news this week. Under the guise of protecting copyrighted material, one bill proposes giving government the power to censor or block web sites on the basis of an accusation.

The Internet poses a danger to totalitarian regimes like China and Iran. When the US are employing the same tactics, how does that make US different?

The other travesty, which passed both houses [the Democratic Senate, Republican House, yada yada yada], gives the president power to declare the US a war zone and order soldiers to detain Americans indefinitely with no trial or charges. They have done that already, now it is codified. Regardless, Congress does not have this power, nor is it theirs to give, because it is unconstitutional.

With drones being deployed by police departments domestically, the potential for totalitarianism is chilling. Oh wait!   "We are purposely not calling these drones. When people hear the word 'drone' they automatically think of the huge military-type aircraft equipped with weapons," says Lieutenant Chad Gann of the Arlington police department.   So they are drones, just don't call them that. [See: Drones spy on our homes]

Americans are fed up, in my humble opinion. They were fed up in 2008 when they voted for an undefined promoter of "change." There has been change, but not the good kind. And really not all that much.

Which brings up Ron Paul, who could get me to vote for a Republican presidential candidate for the first time ever. Dr Paul does not need the presidency. He is an American patriot already. It is America that needs Ron Paul... desperately.

If you think Newton or Mitten will roll back government or restore your freedoms, you have not been paying attention. If you think Obama deserves to be reelected, please seek professional help immediately. I'm begging you.

— December 18, 2011, Pacifica